Linux-Advocacy Digest #412, Volume #25 Sun, 27 Feb 00 10:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Edward Rosten)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Cliff Wagner)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (The WebDragon)
Re: Giving up on NT (Peter Ammon)
Re: This is C.O.L.A here right? (Bastian)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: This is C.O.L.A here right? (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 13:46:12 +0000
David Misner wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The more I think about it, and the more virulent the commetns made in here
> > against linux, the more it becomes clear that the only reason there are people in
> > NGs arguing against the widespread acceptance of linux is a financial tie to ms.
> >
> > Why would anyone be against gettings something for free, that they can change as
> > they see fit, that offers exactly the same amount of tech support but instills
> > more confidence than the current expensive option availpable?
> >
> > Let's see now:
> >
> > -windows is expensive, bloated, and difficult to use. MS is highly resistant to
> > working with customers to make changes and make using a computer easier.
> >
> > -linux is free, and completely malleable. It is simply a matter of time before
> > an appealing GUI is placed on top of it to allow neophytes to comfortably make
> > use of it.
>
> But it is like impossible to install
>
> David
Have you ever installed RH5.2? It booted, detected my cdrom, let me choose what I
wanted installed, installed it, rebooted and ran without a hitch. On 5 different
machines.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: 27 Feb 2000 14:17:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 04:21:09 GMT, Chad Myers typed something like:
>
>"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I'd rather avoid the security flaws inherent to ActiveX and
>> stick with what already works.
>
>Like what? Java? hahahaha....
I believe you are confusing java with poorly implemented JavaScript.
Almost every security flaw I've seen have been JavaScript problems.
>Please, what other packaged internet-distributable and executable
>isolated runtimes are there?
>
>ActiveX is merely an implementation of COM that allows distribution
>of COM components.
Which is a major security design flaw.
Why should my web browser need to interact with WordPad?
>ActiveX could use a little work on the security side, however
>Java ain't the most secure either.
Java runs in a sandbox. However, it's only as secure
as the implementation.
JavaScript on the otherhand has been poorly implemented both
by MS and NS (in terms of security).
>> See: Microsoft Active Setup
>
>See: Just about any Java applet
Oh? Do share some of these majorly insecure java applets
that require no permission of mine to install itself on
my system and add a security hole simply by virtue of
visiting a page.
Hint: MS Active Setup in Win2k will consider a control
signed by MS to be trusted, regardless if it's a new control
or an old one with a known exploit.
>> So what would possess me to need ActiveX over other technologies?
>
>1.) It works
>2.) It's well documented
>3.) It's easy to create components
>4.) The client side works extremely well
>5.) Easily scriptable, and you don't even have to use JavaScript if
> you don't want to!
Disadvatage:
It's not cross platform
It's not cross browser.
It has an inherent security problem
>What other technologies are there, by the way?
>
>And please don't say java.
Depends on the task. I have yet to find anything
that requires ActiveX to truly give any major
productivity boost. In fact, the only ActiveX I had
the displeasure of working with in the past 4 months
would have been better served with straight HTML/ASP
coding.
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 14:19:14 GMT
The real problem is that sony won't be able to show any real performance
gains when they make the PS3 (yes they have already published their
plans for it!!). They hope to make the PS3's EmotionEngine2 around 100x
faster than the original EE. Good luck is all I can say about that since
they will only have around 5 years to develop it. Just remember though
that the reason why consoles have sold so much better to the public is
that they are far easier to setup than any computer, even a mac.
Todd wrote:
>
> "Jim Frost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Todd wrote:
> > > So, 20 million polygons per second.
> > >
> > > Now, take this into account: The *slowest* new Voodoo product (the
> voodoo4)
> > > will do 333 *mega* pixels per second. That's the slowest. I'm not even
> > > going to mention their other products capable of performing *over* the
> > > *giga* pixel limit.
> >
> > This is an apples/oranges comparison. You're comparing polygons to the
> fill
> > rate.
>
> Hehe... I was wondering if someone was going to notice :)
>
> > I haven't been able to find polygon rates for the Voodoo4, perhaps
> > because it would not compare well to the GeForce (which has a 15M polygon
> > rate, still well below that of the PS2 although it's doing that rate with
> T&L
> > functionality too).
>
> Actually, the GeForce fill rate is about 540 million pixels per second...
> but that's with all of its 'special features'... whereas the PS2 goes from
> 75M polygons to just under 20M while using 'its' special features.
>
> Note also that polygons on TV resolution will probably have far fewer
> pixels per polygon than somebody running in 1024x768, for example.
>
> If the GeForce only had to render with a 240x160 pixel resolution, it would
> probably blow away a PS2... which is while fill rates are generally measured
> in millions of pixels / sec... since the average size of polygons would
> change when the resolution changes. For a TV, it is fixed at a very, very
> low resolution compared to even the lower resolution for most PC games...
> 640x480 (which, probably almost noone uses anymore) - I generally play in
> 1024x768...
>
> -Todd
> >
> > jim
--
You say it's cool to be yourself,
but you want me to be like you
and that is not being myself
http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 14:23:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 27 Feb 2000 09:26:18 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 04:25:01 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>|
>| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>| > On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:20:29 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>| > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| > | > No support for ActiveX is a bad thing?
>| > |
>| > | Yes, it's a bad thing.
>| > |
>| > | If you don't know why, then perhaps you should do some research.
>| >
>| > ActiveX: Proprietary client-side scripting introduced by Microsoft.
>| > Has numerous documented security holes and poor security design in
>| > general.
>|
>| But it works.
>
>But it locks you into a specific vendor.
Not if Wine (http://www.winehq.com) can be extended to include
ActiveX and ix86 emulation, and incorporated into a browser. :-)
(Mind you, I for one think Java's security model is a little
more robust, anyway (having been designed into the language
since Day 1), and probably a lot less kludgy.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: The WebDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: 27 Feb 2000 14:28:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| It is flawless by design. Implementation problems (especially on
| Windows) have caused problems.
Not to mention the fact that a few vendors have seen fit to implement it
in such a way that it breaks easily (can anyone spell Microsoft?) which
is why I stay away from IE.
| | about all it's issues? It was designed from the get go with
| | security in mind and yet still has issues.
|
| So let's go with something that that was designed without the least
| bit of concern for security.
heh :)
| | > ActivX is a Bad thing(tm)
| |
| | Java is a Bad Thing(tm). Nice language, too bad the code doesn't
| | run fast on anything, let alone run well.
|
| Speed is certainly an issue for Java, of course better implementations
| of the bytecode compiler and virtual machine will elminate this
| problem eventually. What do you mean when you claim it doesn't
| 'run-well'?
I have no clue.. I have used a few applets for the web (in my own work
that is, for myself or for clients) on occasion, and had no problems
with them..
| Also, you claimed in a subthread that there were some platform
| dependency problems, could you be more specific about where these
| occur, what objects and methods cause these problems?
The difference being the sloppy way that Microsoft implemented it? (just
a guess..) :D
| What you failed to mention is the possibility of running ActiveX on
| multiple platforms. Am I wrong in assuming it's a Windows & IE only
| thing?
as far as I know, you are correct there. None of the other three web
browsers I use, supports ActiveX.
--
send mail to mactech (at) webdragon (dot) net instead of the above address.
this is to prevent spamming. e-mail reply-to's have been altered
to prevent scan software from extracting my address for the purpose
of spamming me, which I hate with a passion bordering on obsession.
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 09:32:56 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike wrote:
>
> The real problem is that sony won't be able to show any real performance
> gains when they make the PS3 (yes they have already published their
> plans for it!!). They hope to make the PS3's EmotionEngine2 around 100x
> faster than the original EE. Good luck is all I can say about that since
> they will only have around 5 years to develop it. Just remember though
> that the reason why consoles have sold so much better to the public is
> that they are far easier to setup than any computer, even a mac.
You don't think the fact that they're about 15% of the price of a
computer has anything to do with it?
-Peter
--
The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net
Vote in the KOTMC: http://pa44.resnet.cornell.edu/kook/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: This is C.O.L.A here right?
Date: 27 Feb 2000 14:42:17 GMT
I used Suse before I installed Mandrake 7 two weeks ago. I have to say that
Mandrake is far better then Suse, but the graphical installation... That's
really a stupid thing. The package selection is the worst I've ever had to
suffer thru. It doesn't tell you about dependencies, selects and unselects
packages just because it feels like it, and the tree where the packages are in
is way too long. I really don't like Suse, but the package selector is far
better.
Bastian.
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 00:35:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Wow, Reading way to much W2K stuff here. Time for talk about a GOOD OS!
>I just upgraded to Mandrake 7.0 and I am impressed! The best install
>program I have EVER seen! As usual, I went for expert mode. Well, I was
>suprised at how much power a GUI install could give me! At one point I
>was asked what level of security I wanted...5 choices from "Welcome
>Hackers" to "Paranoid". Liking the sound of a Paranoid security level, I
>clicked that. It asked for a TEN(10) letter root password the griped
>that the one I picked was toooooo simple. Geees. I found I could change
>the security level using the new system management tools form Mandrake.
>Overall, I find the new GUI stuff from Mandrake much better than the GUI
>from the other OS vendor. And I still have the command line!
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 14:50:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:55:21 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The more I think about it, and the more virulent the commetns made
>in here against linux, the more it becomes clear that the only
>reason there are people in NGs arguing against the widespread
>acceptance of linux is a financial tie to ms.
One of those financial ties might just be the third-party software
that happens to run on Windows NT, such as various flavors of
accounting software, variants of CAD/CAM/CAE, or of course
compilers/linkers/IDEs.
I hope this becomes less of an issue as more and more vendors
(including game vendors such as Id software!) move onto the
Linux bandwagon.
Of course, the virulently anti-Linuxites on these newsgroups
probably aren't going to be advocating MS just because their
favorite accounting software isn't available on freeware
operating systems, somehow. :-)
>
>Why would anyone be against gettings something for free, that they
>can change as they see fit, that offers exactly the same amount of
>tech support but instills more confidence than the current expensive
>option availpable?
If the required third-party software doesn't run on a "free" platform
(there is some merit in Microsoft's page regarding "TCO", FUDded and
ill-defined as it is otherwise), one's SOL. That said, I'm pretty
sure one can find adequate substitutes for almost anything, although
some esoteric needs are probably going to be unmet.
It's an evolving thing, one would think.
>
>Let's see now:
>
>-windows is expensive, bloated, and difficult to use.
Expensive: Somewhat. It's certainly not free, and, when one
ties in the number of crashes, not cheap either. Add in
all of the software such as Visual C++/J++/etc., Office 2000,
and IIS 5.0, and it gets even more expensive.
Bloated: Linux has an edge here, but one has to be careful to
compare apples with apples. Bloated as Windows may be, there
is a lot of functionality in there, and, if Linux, again, doesn't
deliver similar functionality, the comparison (not to mention the
switch) can't be made as effectively. However, that said,
Linux has a lot of functionality as well, and probably
better organized.
For example, one can fit a minimally useable distribution of
Linux on a boot floppy, but one can't do much. (One can
put Windows -- actually, the DOS component -- on a boot
floppy, too, for emergencies.)
Difficult to use: Actually, for rank novices, it's easy to use.
But the power users (such as myself) get rather tired of the
pointy-pointy-clicky-clicky (it takes time to move one's hands).
And then there are the quirks, crashes, and inconsistencies.
I'm not sure Linux is much better in this regard (mostly because
there are so many library options), but then again, it's easier to
differentiate between Qt and Kde and Athena and Java than it
is to differentiate between Windows and Windows and Windows and
Windows. :-)
(Side point: Visual C++ has a moveable menu bar. Visual J++
does not. This is consistency?)
>MS is highly resistant to
>working with customers to make changes and make using a computer easier.
This is debatable. The whole idea of software is to make a
computer easier, and MS can't sell software if it doesn't.
Office 2000, in particular, makes transmitting files over mail
*very* easy -- if both sides have Office 2000, that is, and if
one doesn't mind its other quirks, such as peculiar indentation,
non-standard handling of inclusion, and susceptibility to
macro viruses such as Melissa.
Of course, MS also has an interest in a continuing revenue stream,
which means they're probably also interested in vendor lock.
Linux has no such interest.
>
>-linux is free, and completely malleable. It is simply a matter
>of time before an appealing GUI is placed on top of it to allow
>neophytes to comfortably make use of it.
That "malleation" (if that's a word) takes time and effort.
But otherwise you're right. (As for the "appealing GUI", one
could envision the same silliness as currently exists in the
automobile market -- and Microsoft has *already* started this,
with its Win95, Office97, Win98, Win2000, Office200 nomenclature.)
>
>And again, any bugs in linux are quickly eradicated, while windows
>users are at the mecy of ms to repair them, assuming ms even fesses
>up to their existance.
I'll admit, I've seen it happen. Teardrop was eradicated in less
than a day (as I remember, it took all of 4 hours) from the Linux
kernel, once someone published a CERT advisory.
>It is typical of ms to deny them or their culpability, as they
>consistently, wretchedly blame the user's incompetence or the
>other app manufacturer for "improperly written software."
Or bad hardware, or sloppy drivers, or... :-)
>Assuming ms even bothered to publish the
>necessary apis to even allow for development.
>
>Personally, I prefer free and stabile over expensive and bloated.
Don't forget standardized and documented, as well. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: This is C.O.L.A here right?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:07:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 27 Feb 2000 00:35:36 GMT <899rgp$8qm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Wow, Reading way to much W2K stuff here. Time for talk about a GOOD OS!
It all depends on what one considers "good". Of course, in the
case of Linux, "good" includes reliable, feature-packed, works
with most hardware, standard-compliant, and FREE. :-)
>I just upgraded to Mandrake 7.0 and I am impressed! The best install
>program I have EVER seen! As usual, I went for expert mode. Well, I was
>suprised at how much power a GUI install could give me! At one point I
>was asked what level of security I wanted...5 choices from "Welcome
>Hackers" to "Paranoid".
Cute. Mind you, IE has 4 settings, with cutesy little icons, so
I guess there's precedent. :-)
(What the hell is a "zone", anyway? Sounds like something one
enters on mindzonk drugs.... :-) )
>Liking the sound of a Paranoid security level, I
>clicked that. It asked for a TEN(10) letter root password the griped
>that the one I picked was toooooo simple. Geees.
I for one would hope that there's far more to it than that, like the
various daemons and/or services (sendmail, telnet, ftp, tftp, etc.)
enabled from /etc/inetd.conf and/or run during boot.
(Another point in Linux's favor: one can easily tell what starts
up during boot in most distributions, and, in fact, one can wade
in principle through the source code of the kernel (/usr/src/linux),
and the source code of /etc/init, to tell almost exactly what
the machine's doing. Good luck doing that in Windows.)
>I found I could change
>the security level using the new system management tools form Mandrake.
>Overall, I find the new GUI stuff from Mandrake much better than the GUI
>from the other OS vendor. And I still have the command line!
Sounds rather nice, actually; I'm a stock RedHat user, myself.
Unfortunately, they don't appear to support Amigas/Macs (well,
neither does RedHat). Sigh.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
